No...because of the license, if you were to take the work, adapt it into a new, commercial work and either did not give them attribution or made it look like they endorsed your new work, you would be violating the license and would technically be pirating it. Part of me would find it hilarious if the MPAA or RIAA purposefully did this and started selling it for a penny. Although they'd have to be very careful or their adaptation may stray into the realm of a protected parody.

Hopefully we might one day move towards the revolutionary notion of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Yes I know it's terribly problematic determining the parameters, but if the principle was accepted we'd be a lot further ahead.

Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed. Sadly the people who took advantage of this loophole have made enough money which has given them power to control the goverment and preserve the loophole.

1) Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal. There is some encouragement provided by creators seeing a tiny, tiny percentage of other creators become rich, but that effect is more than nullified by the chilling effect of big media locking down the public domain for ever and ever. Eventually, no one will be able to create anything new without paying someone a fee based on some ancient crap no one except the rights-holder remembers.

2) Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value; in fact, individual packets of information in a computer can't even be made to have value without breaking the computer, since all a computer actually does is separate information from permanent media so that you can copy, destroy, or muck about with it at no cost.Copies mean nothing in Computerland, only creation and access have value.

Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal.

And how does piracy change this?

Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value

You might just as well say individual letters of the alphabet have zero value. Or individual globs of paint have zero value.

Give away the content, sell the container as has been done for centuries. You didn't use to buy novels, you bought books. You didn't buy music, you bought records. You didn't buy movies, you bought tapes.

People like decorating their houses with stuff that shows visitors how erudite or rich or sophisticated or hip or intellectual they are. College kids don't count; they have neither the room nor money for "stuff". The college kid that eschews books in favors of iBooks now will have dead tree books on shelves

you can charge for live performances
Yes, I should've thought about performing software and movies sooner.

you can charge for merchandise
We're going to fund my next romantic comedy movie by selling action figures!

you can rely on people paying because it's the right thing to do (a la that one radiohead album).
You mean that one stunt that they said they're never going to repeat again? http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932361-7.h [cnet.com]

You can charge a subscription, you can charge for live performances, you can charge for merchandise, you can rely on people paying because it's the right thing to do (a la that one radiohead album). You can charge for added value, like the convenience of having a large collection (Netflix). Or you can do something like a patronage system, or work as a commercial artist.

You're suggesting this in a forum that is made up of large numbers of people who vehemently defend pirating stuff, even though they admit it to be wrong, because the RIAA and MPAA are supposed to be even worse? A group of people that seem to think two wrongs do make a right, or a wrong is somehow okay if it's hurting a big bad corporation?

The cost of making movies is not primarily in the leading actors' fee. You have to pay for the director, technicians, caterers and all the rest too.

Anyway, it's a chicken and egg thing. Tom Cruise only gets paid so much because the movies he stars in generate a lot of money. If those movies make no money (because no fucker is paying to watch them) then Tom won't even get paid the minimum wage for making films, and at some point the only films getting made will be by amateurs..

Because art is like science and technology, in that what exists now is built on what came before. Imagine how technology would stagnate if patents lasted as long as copyrights? Well, that's how art has stagnated since the Bono Act. It needs to be repealed.

> "Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed."

The problem with the "copyright means that creators get paid over and over for doing something once" argument is that prices reflect that. A movie that costs $400 million dollars to create can be yours for $10. Software that costs a billion dollars to create get paid-off by a huge number of small payments by individual people. There's nothing wrong with getting p

That's how the system is supposed to work and if it did, I'd have no problem with it. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It's much more complex than that and you're seeing exactly what they want you to see. You say that Starcraft 2 would not have been created because nobody is going to pay $100 million but that's not true. I didn't pay for Starcraft 2 until it was finished and the $100 million had already been paid for. Who do you think paid that money up front? Honest gamers? Nope. Investors. Most of

And, of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that these investors were what made it possible for Blizzard to spend 100 million developing the game.

There is nothing special about games and software compared with any other commodity. Someone invests in my widget making company, paying for manufacturing equipment, set up of offices and all the rest, and then when I sell enough widgets I can pay them interest, a share of profit or whatever.

You cannot have a sensible business model based on "you invest 100 million so that we can develop this game, then we'll give it away for free afterwards because people are only going to pirate it anyway". You won't get the investment in the first place, and your next game will have to be made for free, including people's time.

Who do you think paid that money up front? Honest gamers? Nope. Investors.
First of all, I have doubts that Blizzard needs to go to investors. I'm sure they've got enough money in the bank from World of Warcraft to self-fund themselves. I know a few things about self-funded ventures because I've created software which was funded *SOLELY* by my own savings. Did that stop pirates from pirating it? Of course it didn't. Pirates still feel entitled to free entertainment.

Sharing the cost of production is a fine idea when there is true competition such as commodities, products built to standards, but anything with artistic value has no equal, there can be no true competition.

What are you talking about? When I create new software, copyright is used to prevent filesharing (i.e. my users doing an end-run around paying for it and getting a free copy) and it prevents commercial piracy (i.e. someone going and selling my software without my permission and pocketing all the money for themselves).

That was bad terminology on my part. I meant copyright protection and a reasonable time limit in addition to reasonable profit would be great. If $100,000,000 profit is made within the first month, then what are we protecting them from? Is protection really needed?

If $100,000,000 profit is made within the first month, then what are we protecting them from? Is protection really needed?

The trouble with that is that you would be encouraging mediocrity. Say I write a fantastic book everyone wants to read and make a million the first year, and nothing afterward, while a hack whips out some garbage that takes fifty years to earn that much. He's still got copyright while I don't. Rather, give both the same amount of time. If author #1 sells a million books a year whle autho

Seriously? I think Brittany Spears was making like 1.2 million per show on one of her tours, not bad for a night's work. I imagine she'd still be just as popular had everyone gotten her damn music for free. Performers should get paid for performances. Sell the digital music cheap to drum up fans and excitement. Don't worry about a few downloads... just more fans who may eventually drop 100 bucks a ticket to come see a show.

So, I rather suspect the ticket price would be exactly what it is now, except everyone who wants to see the film would need to buy a ticket before the movie starts getting made.

The parasites that actually DO get paid over and over, and then cook the books so that it looks like they're not making a profit and therefore don't have to pay anyone royalties? Those guys? They'd be fucked. Everyone else from the scriptwriter to the moviegoer would be just fine.

This idea that copies are worth something is an idea that people are going to have to learn to let go of if they want to join the rest of us here in the computer age.

They only get paid at all because it is possible to make a profit on a film. If you knew you could only generate a maximum of (say) a million dollars on even the most successful film, you'd get much slimmed down casts, crew and everything else. No one would spend anywhere near a million to make a film any more.

The parasites that actually DO get paid over and over, and then cook the books so that it looks like they're not making a profit and therefore don't have to pay anyone royalties? Those guys? They'd be fucked.

They're the ones who took the risk of financing it. Everyone on slashdot is all libertarian-anarchist-capitalist when it suits them, but you don't seem to like the reality of capitalism much when it

The value of a unit of work entirely depends upon the perceptions of the people who benefit from said work. As such, it varies with many variables, including location, culture, material availability, labor availability, alternative benefit availability, time, etc.

It is very easy to deem that someone else is overpaid because of the low value their output has to you personally, without taking into account the high value it may have to the people who are actually paying for it. The opposite is also true.

Hopefully we might one day move towards the revolutionary notion of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Yes I know it's terribly problematic determining the parameters, but if the principle was accepted we'd be a lot further ahead.

I have been waiting for this. Blackouts and protests can raise awareness, but those interested yet lacking knowledge require a targeted repository of information on the issues at hand. The distribution of knowledge is the best way to prepare the masses for the lengthy and technical debates that are sure to arise regarding SOPA/PIPA in the following years.

Ha! I'm going to sell it without attribution. What are you going to do about it, Pirate Party?!

The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited. It can be argued that copyright is a recent innovation (the early US legislation noted that it is a government fiat to spur creation, not a natural right) and alien to most people, but claims that authors have the right to be credited stretch far back into antiquity.

Basically, copyright violation and plagiarism are two different issues.

The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited.

Not quite. Their licence forbids others to sell copies of their book. That is indeed a copyright claim. They are trying to dictate what I do with the copies I make. How can they do that unless they claim to own them?

And what if I oppose the "moral right" of the author to be credited. What's to say the Pirate Party are right and I'm wrong? Has not the Pirate Party demonstrated that they believe the moral course of action for me is to act based on my beliefs, not the author's beliefs. Therefore they should u

Oh, I'm sure that they don't mind if you sell copies of the book, if you get rid of copyright first.

Bullshit, nothing is forcing them to use copyright if they don't want to, they can just release it into the public domain, and their action does not affect anyone else (unlike not paying tax or not obeying a law).

> "The Pirate Party opposes the present understanding of copyright, but it does not oppose the moral right of the author to be credited.

One of the oft-cited excuses for piracy is that "you can't stop us / copyright is incompatible with computers because they are designed to copy bits!" The fact of the matter is that the Pirate Party can't stop anyone from deleting the attribution. So, using the same excuses that they use to legitimize piracy, other people can justify removing attribution. If the Pi

It's more then just abused heavily corporations have outright stolen the public domain, any attempt at reform will be blocked and consistently attacked again until it's back where it started. I really hate how ignorant some slashdotters are about copyright history.

Do you really think the people and companies behind the following will not attack and overturn reform at the first chance they get?

> The primary goal is copyright reform, not abolishment.
Just so you know: Nina Paley (who'd mentioned in the summary as creating cartoons for the book) believes in the total abolition of copyright. She thinks everyone should be able to to anything with other people's copyright - including sell it. In the past, she has attacked people who believe in the legalization of filesharing but think commercial copyright should still exist.

The primary goal is copyright reform, not abolishment.
Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily.

I don't think so. The anti-copyright argument on slashdot (and I assume for the pirate people) is s that digitally copying something costs nothing so therefore why should anyone ever pay for a copy? That certainly involves scrapping the idea of copyright entirely.

1) write books.2) hold your copyright for the length of time you think is appropriate. this could be zero years.3) after that time passes, release your books into the public domain.

If you are right that your options 2 or 3 are superior to the existing system then you'll become more successful than the people using the existing system and therefore everyone will use your approach to copyright.

It's available on torrent.
We're using the canadian pirate party's CaPT torrent tracker.
Magnet is magnet:?xt=urn:btih:79ADFF2965C672CC66F2AD54D67857BD3BAEEC61&dn=NoSafeHarbor_eBooks-USPirateParty&tr=http%3a//www.pirateparty.ca/tracker/announce.php
OR the torrent file is http://bit.ly/x5gtHe [bit.ly]
Keep track of @nosafeharbor for more info

I read the first few essays and, though I agree with the sentiments therein, I found most of them rather poorly written - either unsure of their target (e.g., most non-computer-geek persons will not know what a "zombie botnet" is and how it relates to DNS, which is also not described) or incredibly dense in legality or just scattered (jumping from point-to-point with little connection). As a document, the whole thing would be unreadable by the normal man on the street. If you actually want a good example of what a publisher and the editorial services they should provide bring to the table, you need do little more than try to read this document. The distance between where this document is and where it should be to be effective (which should demonstrate the amount of work it would take to bridge the gap) is also a good indicator as to why these intermediaries deserve to be paid for these efforts.

If you want to kill copyright, you should put out a document showing that the services of those paid by copyright is no longer necessary. This document, though heartfelt, is crap.

I was going to post something very similar to this. The great irony of this publication is that none of the essays or stories are of the same standard as their copyrighted, for-profit alternatives.

The strongest argument, I think, that is tendered against copyright reform that would legalise sharing is that making it more difficult to make money from content creation would lead to an impoverishment of content. Creating good content is expensive, both in terms of time spent creating it and money spent on copy

I was hoping to find a Pirate Party response to Richard Stallman's essay [gnu.org] on how the Swedish Pirate Party's proposed short term of copyright creates a needlessly unequal opportunity between copylefted free software and proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. In the same essay Stallman proposes a fix that resolves the unequal opportunity.

It's the unequal results upon entering the PD that is unfair: Proprietors don't release source code so upon entry into the public domain their works would be

This neat theory that corporate personhood was a badly phrased but highly meaningless concept vanished the instant the Supreme Court extended the protections of freedom of speech to corporations. Combined with money == speech, corporations have rights unmatched by any but the wealthiest Citizens.

Except that the right overlapping rights of corporations were traditionally held as the right to contract as a person. Speech is a creative right, one that had been traditionally been withheld as germane only to a person; One can ask a person what his opinion is, a question that doesn't even make sense in the light of a corporation - one cannot ask a corporation anything, only the duly authorized representative of a corporation.

In regard to a contract, swearing in a duly authorized representative makes sens

In order to do so, might one also need to make the quorum shareholders of a publically traded corp each plaintiffs for any lawsuit that a corp wants to file ?

Limited personhood perhaps makes sense, but I'd call it merely a 'legal entity' that is empowered to do certain things (financial and legal transactions) and not do other things (vote, unrestricted speech, etc). But that is more complicated than just calling them persons en toto.

Actually, they did mention that. You just missed it, because you're an idiot.

You also missed the part where it says that it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, or what the authorities claim you've done, the same rights still apply to you as to everyone else.Presumably you missed this for the same reason.